A series of two-page spreads asks questions ("Have I told you that you are creative?") across from short tributes. He writes of Georgia O'Keeffe: "She helped us see big beauty in what is small: the hardness of stone and the softness of feather." His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: ("A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.")

President Obama’s picture book for kids, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters (Knopf, $17.99), pays tribute to 13 Americans whose traits he sees in his own children.
The 31-page book, for kids ages 3 and up, is filled with lyrical questions for Malia, 12, and Sasha, 9, opening with, “Have I told you lately how wonderful you are?”

The book, out Tuesday, is illustrated with Loren Long’s paintings of the Obama girls and their dog, Bo, as well as the 13 famous Americans as kids and grown-ups.

A series of two-page spreads asks questions (”Have I told you that you are creative?”) across from short tributes. He writes of Georgia O’Keeffe: “She helped us see big beauty in what is small: the hardness of stone and the softness of feather.” His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: (”A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.”)

...

Obama’s publisher says he’s not planning interviews or events for the book. His royalties are to go to a scholarship fund for children of soldiers killed or disabled.

(I’d bet the proceeds if they go anywhere will go in Obama’s pocket. Obama HATES the military.

Sitting Bull was not the battle leader of the Native Americans at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. He was present but was an older man. If anyone should be credited, it would be Crazy Horse, the Lakota chief whose flanking cavalry maneuver completed the annihilation of Custer and his troops.

General Custer had his permanent rank of Lieutenant Colonel restored following the Civil War. It is not uncommon to refer to a Lt.Col. as "colonel." Custer was usually addressed as "General" respecting his Civil War service at that temporary rank.

"Cmon now. Sitting Bull was not a terrorist. Lets not diminish the word so quickly. Besides, you have to admit Custer had it coming."

Sitting bull was a terrorist. You haven't read your history on the Indians yet, or have the wrong books. I was once a collector of antiquarian books, and you just cannot find better history than when reading the books of the actual times, when "history" was current events. These Indians were trecherous people, with no guiding principles to reign in their human instincts. And they were heartless butchers, routinely slaughtering women and children, asking for everything they recieved in return. They were not one iota different than the Roman Empire barbarians or the women and baby sacrificing Aztecs, both of whom were too base a people to build a real civilization.

I think whoever wrote this was just entranced with the word ‘healing’. It’s very dernier cri.

the Native americans were warriors. It was a warrior society. Women were treated like beasts of burden. In the aftermath of the battle small children were encouraged to hack up the bodies to toughen them. so it goes.

WOW! Now the Kenyan Usurper is openly praising terrorists?
***************************

Custer was the damned terrorist.

Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse et alia were Red State Americans clinging to their guns and religion and antipathy to people who weren’t like them, who incidentally were also trying to kill them, their wives and their children. The defenders at the Little Bighorn understood the nature of the federal government and its benevolent intent early on.

These Indians were trecherous people, with no guiding principles to reign in their human instincts.

I assume you got this from your antiquarian books. Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who "routinely slaughtering women and children"? Probably not. A more accurate history requires a little distance from the events. Ask George Bush.

This is the only thing I agree with Obama about. Custer was an arrogant Indian killer who thought his 600 men could swoop down on a village of 12-20,000 Sioux and Northern Comanche and rout them. He deserved what he got. Too bad for the innocent soldiers that had to follow him. All he had to do was to wait for Gen. Terry and success would have followed.

Correct; Sitting Bull was a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. The American Indians were mistreated horribly (a few deservedly, but most not so) for a lot of years. Remember that when we thought that Obama’s minions might become a physical threat to us (conservatives in general), we were prepared to fight them. And fighting “fair” only gets you killed quicker!

34
posted on 11/17/2010 7:17:42 AM PST
by JimRed
(Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty too! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)

Pet peeve of mine: wasnt Custer a colonel when he was killed? Or a Lt. Col.?

Lt. Col. And 2nd in command of the 7th Cavalry. The actual commander, Col. Samuel D. Sturgis, who replaced the original commander, Col. Andrew Johnson Smith, in 1869, never held a field command. Custer had field commander.

This is the only thing I agree with Obama about. Custer was an arrogant Indian killer who thought his 600 men could swoop down on a village of 12-20,000 Sioux and Northern Comanche and rout them. He deserved what he got. Too bad for the innocent soldiers that had to follow him. All he had to do was to wait for Gen. Terry and success would have followed.

Northern Cheyenne, not Comanche. As for waiting for Terry and success being assured, that's quite debatable...

Because Obama knows what he's doing, he's distorting the truth for own purposes, namely, to divide the nation against whites. The Indians were nothing more than base barbarians who were constantly at war with each other, slaughtering each other for land, or just for the fun of it to see whose braves were better. I can only imagine what the European settlers felt when they arrived in America from a true civilization with great advancements in technology, building techniques, machinery, language, culture, universities, cities, medicine, and men treating women as precious ladies, (not as squaws), just to see these screaming, painted faced aboriginies running around naked and completely without scientific advancements. They were a throwback in time culturally, morally and mentally.

And for those of you who have been brainwashed with the lies that these aboriginies treated whites well and just wanted peace, you've been taught error, lots of error. The Indians were barbarians who did barbaric things to each other and to the white settlers. They seemed to especially like killing white women and children. That was their way to commit genocide against the whites; no women, no children, then eventually no whites. Sort of backfired though, didn't it?

Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who "routinely slaughtering women and children"? Probably not.

It wasn't routine.

That's why the PC history books make such a big deal out of Sand Creek and a few other occasion where it actually took place.

Did women and children get killed? Absolutely, but in most cases as a result of collateral damage. At Sand Creek, quite a number of Chivington's officers objected strongly to his murderous orders to take no prisoners. The massacre was a huge scandal at the time, precisely because it wasn't "routine."

For an alternative where "kill them all" was the norm, may I refer you to the history of Argentine, which was fighting its last Indian wars at the same time we were.

Argentina has no Indian problem because it has no Indians. They killed them all.

OTOH, it was indeed routine for American Indians to kill white (and enemy Indian) women and children, often by torturing them to death.

Cmon now. Sitting Bull was not a terrorist. Lets not diminish the word so quickly. Besides, you have to admit Custer had it coming.

I could not agree more. Terrorist my a$$!

Calling Sitting Bull a terrorist is analogous to calling the little tin god an outstanding Christian and excellent president.

Both statements have equal levels of truth in them.

Moreover, Custer - at least from a military viewpoint - blew this one for sure. It didn't help the cause that there was a great deal of mistrust and dissention in the chain of command, bad intelligence, overconfidence, and lousy scouting either. But since he was the overall commander, the fault and the loss lies with him and him alone.

49
posted on 11/17/2010 7:46:34 AM PST
by Logic n' Reason
(You can roll a turd in powered sugar; that don't make it a jelly donut)

the history of Indian affairs in this country is a largely shameful one.

Quite true. But it's shameful because we violated our own laws and principles. What happened here is what has always happened whenever a primitive people comes into contact with a more advanced one.

William Penn showed that it was possible to live peacefully side-by-side if affairs were conducted fairly.

True, in the short term. In the long run, the exploding white settler population would eventually want the land of the Indians, who were declining in number. The only way to prevent them from taking it would be by means of an absolute monarchy which would protect the Indians.

Does anyone think there was some scenario by which white settlement could have been permanently stopped at the Appalachians or Mississippi? If the US had done so, it still wouldn't have saved the Indians, as the unprotected land would have been settled by some other white nation.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.